ﺍﻟﺘﹼﻔﺭﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﺒﻥ ﺴﻴﻨﺎ
www.fiseb.com
m
ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻟﻄﻔﻲ ﺧﲑﺍﻟﻠﹼﻪ.
o
ﺫﻛﺮ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﰲ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻴﻢ ﳑّﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﺄﻧّﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﺎ
b.c
ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ .١ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻠﲔ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﳘﺎ :
ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻧّﻪ ُﻳﺮَﺍ ُﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷ ﹼﰎ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﺮﻑ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ،ﺃﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺼّﻮﺭ ،ﻭﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ،ﻭﺍﶈﺮّﻙ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺤﺮّﻙ ﰲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ،
ﻓﻴﺤﺼﻞ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻻ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﺟﺰﺋﻴّﺎ ﳐﺼﻮﺻﺎ
o
ﻛﺴﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ.٢
ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ُﻳﺮَﺍ َﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺳَﺎ ٍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧُ ِﻈ َﺮ
ott
ﺺ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﻬﺎ ،ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻧُ ِﻈ َﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ
ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺼّﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺟﺰﺋﻴّﺔ ﲣﺘ ّ
ﻳﻌﻤّﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻤّﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ
ﺹ
ﻋﻠﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺤﺺ ﰲ َﻣ ْﻮﺟُﻮ ٍﺩ َﻣ ْﻮﺟُﻮ ٍﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭ ﰲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻮﺍ ّ
alk
ﺗﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﰲ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟ ﹼﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ
ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻫﻮ ﳑّﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻫﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﺮّﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ.٣
w.
ﻭﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺎ ُﺧﺺﱠ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ
ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﲢﺘﻪ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﺍﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻏﲑ ﺿﺮﺏ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﺍﺝ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﲢﺖ ﺟﻨﺲ
ww
ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺄﻧّﻪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،٤ﻓﻬﻲ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻗ ﹼﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻨﻪ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ
ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ،ﻓﻼ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺑﺄﻋﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻓﻼ
ﺷﻲﺀ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﺮّﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻻ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ،ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲّ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﺎ
www.alkottob.com
ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ .٥ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻧﻌﻮّﻝ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻬ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﺎ
ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺮﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨّﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺘﺒﺪّﻯ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﺒﺪّﻳﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺄ ﹼﻥ
m
ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ،ﻭﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻣﻘﻴّﺪ ،ﻭﺗﻘﻴّﺪﻩ ﻻ
ﺼﺺٌ ،ﻭﲣﺼّﺺ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻮﺭﻩ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺨﱠ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ُﻣ َ
o
ﺍﻧﻀﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺁﺧﺮ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﱂ ﺗﺰﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴّﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ
b.c
ﺼﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺪﻳﺚ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻮﺟّﺐ ،ﺑﺎﺩﺉ ﺫﻱ ﺑﺪﺀ ،ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳔ ّ
ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ :
ﳌﹼﺎ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻬﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﺟﺪﻭﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﺘﲔ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ،
o
ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺘﺎ ﰲ ﻟﻔﻈﻬﻤﺎ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻬﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺗﺎ ﺫﻭﺍﰐ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ،ﻭﳘﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻭﺯﻳﺎ ،ﻭﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﻮ
ott
ﺍﺳﱵ .ﻭﻗﺪ ﻏﻠﺐ ﻧﻘﻠﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﺼﻄﻠﺤﲔ ﺫﻳﻨﻚ ،ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ،ﻭﻃﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ.
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺪﺗﺎ ﺫﻭﺍﰐ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ،ﻭﲞﺎﺻّﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺃﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﹼﻢ
ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ،ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ،ﻛﻠﺘﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻔﻈﺘﲔ ،ﻟﻴﺪ ﹼﻝ ﻬﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ
alk
ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﻮّﻡ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﺕ .ﻭﺇﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ .ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﻘﻮّﻡ
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻗﻮّﻡ ﻟﻠﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻘﻮّﻣﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﺣﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ .٦ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺃ ّ
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻭﺯﻳﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻮ ﺍﺗﺴﻲ ! ﻓﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻋﲔ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﺃّ
ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺒﻪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘّﻘﺪّﻡ .ﻭﻟﻜﻨّﻪ ﳌﹼﺎ ﺗﻠﻘﹼﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﻤﻮﻥ
w.
ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺗﲔ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ،ﻭﲞﺎﺻّﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻠﻘﹼﺐ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﻠﹼﻢ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ،ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺍﰊ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ
ﺺ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﲪّﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺼ َ
َﺧ ﱠ
ww
ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻋ ّﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ .ﻓﻜ ﹼﻞ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻓﻠﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ
ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ،ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻘﻮّﻡ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮّﻡ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ.
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﻮّﻡ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ
www.alkottob.com
ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ .ﻭﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﻮّﻣﺎ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮّﻡ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ ،ﻓﻴﺴﻤّﻰ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﻮّﻡ ﺟﺰﺀ
ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﻭﺍﳌﻘﻮّﻡ ﻛﻠﹼﻪ ﻳﺴﻤّﻰ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﻭﻳﻠﺰﻣﻪ ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻗﻮّﻡ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ .ﻓﻜﻮﻥ
m
ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻠﺤﻘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻲﺀ
ﺖ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ .ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﺍ ﺑﺄﻧّﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ
ﺁﺧﺮ .ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋُ ﱢﺮﹶﻓ ِ
o
ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﻨﻴّﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ،ﻷ ﹼﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮ ّﺩ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ
ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﻟﻠﺠﻮﻫﺮ ،ﺑﻞ ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻭﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﺎﻣّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺃﺿﻴﻖ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ
b.c
ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻟﻮ ﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﳒﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻋ ّﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺭﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﹼﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﻤﻮﻥ،٨
ﺴﱠﻠﻤًﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﺗﺴﺎﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ، ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻗﺪﳝﺎ ،ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ُﻣ َ
ﺴَﺘ ْﻐ ِﺮﹶﻗ ﹲﺔ ﻻ ﳏﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﺴﺎﺋﺮ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ
ﻗﻠﺖ :ﻟﻮ ﺭﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳒﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ،ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣُ ْ
ﻏﲑ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﺮﺍﺽ .ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﻟﻨﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔ ّﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣ ّﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ :
o
ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻴّﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺮﺿﺎ،
ott
ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻮّﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ
ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ .ﻓﻴﺨﺮﺝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺎ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ
ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ،ﻟﻴﺼﲑ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ،ﺃﻱ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ
alk
ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ.
ﻭﺍﳊ ّﻖ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﻼﻓﻪ ،ﻭ ﻻ ﺳﻴّﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺍﰊ ،ﰲ ﲣﻠﻴﺼﻪ
ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻠﻴﺺ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺎ ﻻ ﻣﻨﺪﻭﺣﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ
w.
ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺣﺼّﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ،ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ .ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧّﻪ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳌﺰﻳّﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ
ﺍﻟﺘّﺨﻠﻴﺺ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﻃﹼﺊ ﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﲣﺎﻟﻒ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳّﺔ
ww
ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺍﻧﺒﻨﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴّﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ
ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﺃﻧّﻪ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ .ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ؟
www.alkottob.com
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮﻫﻮ؛ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮﻫﻮ ،ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺍﺩ ﲟﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻣﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺭُ ِﻓ َﻊ ﺣﻘﻴﻘ ﹰﺔ ﺃﻭ
m
ﺗﻮ ّﻫﻤًﺎ ،ﺍﺭﺗﻔﻊ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ،ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭﻩ.
ﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻮ ﺭﻓﻌﺘﻪ ﺫﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺍﻧﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﲟﺎ ﻓﺄﻧﺖ ﺍ ْﻋَﺘِﺒ ْﺮ ﻣﺜﻼ ﰲ ﺫﻫﻨﻚ ﻣُﹶﺜﻠﱠﺜﹰﺎ ،ﻓﺄ ّ
o
ﻫﻮ ﻣﺜﻠﹼﺚ ؟ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ :ﺇﻧّﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻣﺴﻄﹼﺤﺎ ﻣﺆﻟﹼﻔﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﺿﻼﻉ !ﻓﺎﻟﺸّﻜﻞ
ﺍﳌﺴﻄﹼﺢ ﻭﺛﻼﺛﻴّﺔ ﺍﻷﺿﻼﻉ ُﻋ ﱠﺪﺗَﺎ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ،ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ .ﻭﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎ
b.c
ﺧﻼ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺘﲔ ﻓﻠﻮ ﺃﻧﺖ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺿﺖ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﻓﻬﻞ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﻊ ﺗﺼﻮّﺭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ؟
ﻼ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ !ﻓﻼ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺱ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻛﹼ
ﻣﺴﻄﹼﺤﺎ ﺫﺍ ﺃﺿﻼﻉ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ؛ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻢ ﻫﻢ ﺃﻭﻻﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ،
ﻓﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻮّﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﺻﻔﺘﻪ ﻛﻮﻥ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺯﻭﺍﻳﺎﻩ ﺗﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﺯﺍﻭﺗﲔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺘﲔ .ﻓﻬﺬﻩ
o
ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳ ّﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﱪﻫﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ،ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺭﺍﻡ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺭﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ
ott
ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﹶﻟَﺘْﺒﻘﹶﻰ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺫﻫﻨﻪ .ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼّﻔﺔ ،ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻻ ﺯﻣﺔ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ
ﻟﻠﻤﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺜﻠﹼﺚ ،ﻟﻜﻨّﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﲟﻘﻮّﻣﺔ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ.
alk
ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻴﻨّﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻭﺑﺴﻄﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﻟﻨﻨﻈﺮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺣﺼّﻞ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﲔ
ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ.
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺑﺪﻳﻬ ّﻲ ﻭﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻨّﻔﺲ ،ﻭﻷﻧّﻪ ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ
w.
ﻭﺃﺣﻘﹼﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﻊ ﺑﺘﺎﺗﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘّﻌﺮﻳﻒ ،ﻟﻴﺖ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ،ﺇ ﹼﻻ
ﲢﺼﻴﻞ ﳎﻬﻮﻝ ﲟﻌﺮﻭﻑ !؟ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ،ﻓﻼ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﻣﻨﻪ ،ﻓﻼ
ﻑ .ﻭﺇﺫ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﻊ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﺮّﻓﻪ ،ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻻ ُﻳ َﻌﺮﱠ ُ
ww
ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘّﻄﺮّﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘّﻘﺴﻴﻢ .ﻭﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺫﻭ ﻃﺮﺍﺋﻖ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﳓﻦ
ﺳﻨﻘﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻤﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺒﻪ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻤﺎ ﺃﻭّﻻ ﻭﻛﺒﲑﺍ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺘﻪ،
www.alkottob.com
ﲏ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ ّ
ﲏ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﰲ ﲏ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ ّ
ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻤﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫ ّ
ﲏ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ .ﻭ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺣﺎﺻﻼ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬﻫ ّ
m
ﺴﻴّﺎ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺎ .ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻻ ،ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﺨﻴّﻼ ،ﺃﻭ ﻣﺪﺭﻛﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﺣ ّ
ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﺩّﺓ ﳏﺴﻮﺳﺔ ،ﺃﻭ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻻ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ
o
ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺫﻭ ﻣﺮﺍﺗﺐ ،ﺃﺧﺴّﻬﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐﹼ ،ﻭﻳﺘﻮﺳّﻄﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺴّﻤﺎﻭﻱ،
ﻭﺃﻋﻼﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻹﻻﻫ ّﻲ .ﻭﺑﺎﳉﻤﻠﺔ ،ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻻ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻫﻨﻴّﺎ ،ﻭﺇﻣّﺎ ﻋﻴﻨﻴّﺎ.
b.c
ﻭﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ،ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴّﺆﺍﻝ :ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ِﻟﺰَﺍﻣًﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﻣّﺎ ﰲ
ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﻓﻬﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ،ﺃﻭ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ،ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺟﺰﺀ
ﺤﻮُ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺰﺀ ﳌﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ
ﻣﻘﻮّﻡ ﳌﺎﻫﻴّﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺃﻡ ﻻ ؟ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻞ َﻧ ْ
o ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ؟ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ :ﻛ ﹼ
ﻼ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ !ﻭﺃﻳﺴﺮ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ
ott
ﺧﻼﻓﻪ ،ﺃﻱ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳓﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻣﻘﻮّﻣﺎ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻭﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ
ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ ،ﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻛﻨّﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﻫﻮﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ،ﻟﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﺼ ﱠﻮ َﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ،ﻓﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﳓﺎﺀ ﹶﻻ ْﻣَﺘَﻨ َﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳَُﺘ َ
alk
ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﺘﻨﻌﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ،ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﻊ
ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ،ﻓﺈﻧّﻪ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺃ ﹼﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨّﺤﻮ
ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ،ﻓﺘﺼﲑ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﺑﺪﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ .ﺇ ﹼﻥ
ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻷﻭّﻝ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔ ّﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ :
w.
ﻟﻘﺪ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺟﺰﺀﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﻮّﻡ ﳍﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺿﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﻊ ﻣﻌﻪ
ﻧﻔﺲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ،ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﻌﺖ ﺛﻼﺛﻴّﺔ ﺍﻷﺿﻼﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﻓﲑﺗﻔﻊ ﺑﺎﺭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ
ww
ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺃﳓﺎﺀ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ،
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ،ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺸﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ...
www.alkottob.com
ﻓﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ،ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻓﺎ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﳓﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻠﻚ ،ﻫﻞ ﻋﺴﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ُﻣ ﹶﻘ ﱢﻮﻣًﺎ
ﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ،ﺃﻱ ﻟﻮ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭُِﻓ َﻊ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ
m
ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻓﻬﻞ ﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻫﻲ ؟
ﻼ ﺑﺘﺎﺗﺎ ! ﻷﻧّﻪ ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻷﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ
ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ :ﻛ ﹼ
o
ﻣﺜﻼ ،ﻫﻮ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ،ﻛﺈﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ ﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ
ﺍﳌﺮﺑّﻊ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪّﺍﺋﺮﺓ .ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬّﻫﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﰲ ﺍﻟ ﹼﺬﻫﻦ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ
b.c
ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ،ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺜﻠﹼﺚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﻦ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻘﻮّﻡ ﳌﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ،
ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻋﺎﺭﺽ ﻟﻪ ،ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ،ﺇﻧّﻪ ﻋﺮﺽ ﳍﺎ.
ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ! ﺗﻠﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ،ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ
o
ﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺷﺎﻋﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻭّﻻ ،ﹼﰒ ﺗﻠﻘﹼﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﺘﻜﻠﹼﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ،ﻛﺎﻟﻔﺨﺮ
ﺍﻟ ّ
ott
ﻼ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺸّﲑﺍﺯﻱ،
ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺯﻱ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺯﻱ ،ﻭﺳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺘﺎﺯﺍﱐ ،ﻭﺍﳌ ﹼ
ﰐ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴّﺔ ،ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ ،ﻭﺩﻭﻧﺲ ﺳﻜﻮﺕ ،ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭ
ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻠﻘﹼﺎﻫﺎ ﻻ ﻫﻮ ﹼ
ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺘﺌﺖ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ! ٩
alk
ﻭﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻧّﻪ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺮﺽ ﳍﺎ ،ﺇﺫ ﻗﺪ
ﻳﺘّﻔﻖ ﺃﻥ ﳒﺪ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻘﻮّﻣﺎ ﳍﺎ ،ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻘﻮﱘ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ
ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ،ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨﺔ .ﻧﻌﻢ ﺇﺫ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺴّﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﻱ ﺃﻭ ﳑﻜﻦ ،ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﻱ ،ﻭﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻤﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ،ﻓﻨﻘﺴّﻤﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ّ
w.
ﻱ ﺑﻐﲑﻩ .10ﻓﺎﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﻱ ﺑﻐﲑﻩ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻱ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ،ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﺴّﻤﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﳑﻜﻦ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ،ﻓﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺇﺫﹰﺍ ﻓﻘﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻨﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﹼﺔ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ،
ww
ﻱ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﺎﺭﺽ ﳍﺎ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻀّﺮﻭﺭ ّ
ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ،ﻓﻮﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑﻩ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ
www.alkottob.com
ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﻛﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺛﻼﺛﻴّﺔ ﺍﻷﺿﻼﻉ ﻟﻠﻤﺜﻠﹼﺚ .ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻲّ ،ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ
ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻴّﺔ.
m
ﻓﺈﺫﹰﺍ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﳍﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺘﲔ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺗﲔ :
ﺃ( ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣُ ﹾﻄﹶﻠ ِﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴّﺔ ،ﺑﻼ ﲣﺼﻴﺺ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﺪ ،ﺃﻱ ﺃ ﹼﻥ
o
ﺠ ﱠﺮ ِﺩ ِﻩ ﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﻳﺪ ﹼﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﺾ ﺍﻹِﻧﱠِﻴ ِﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ،
ﻧﻔﺲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ِﺑﻤُ َ
b.c
ﺸﻲﺀ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ.
ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳏﺾ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟ ّ
ﺏ( ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﻴّﻨﺔ ،ﻭﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ،ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ
ﳝﻜﻦ ﺳﺮﻳﺎﻬﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ ،ﻭﺇﻧّﻤﺎ ﺗﺸ ﹼﺬ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ
ﳐﺼﻮﺻﺔ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻴّﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ،
o
ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﻮّﻡ ﳍﺎ ،ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺮﺿﺎ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻪ ،ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ
ott
ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻋﲔ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ .ﺃﻣّﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻪ ،ﻓﺈ ﹼﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ
ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻬﺎ ،ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﺮﺽ ﳍﺎ ،ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳏﺘﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻌﻠﹼﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﺪﺓ ﳍﺎ،
ﺴِﺒ َﻐ ٍﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ،ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺎﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺴّﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺇ ﹼﻻ ﻣﻦ
ﺃﻭ ﻣُ ْ
alk
ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘّﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑﻩ ،ﻭﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻤّﻴﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ
ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ.
ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺖ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ.
w.
ﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ :
(١ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ " ،ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ" ،ﺃﻭّﻝ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﻴﻢ.
ww
(٢ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻭﻛﺎﺗﻒ ﻫﺎﻣﻼﻥ " ،ﻧﺴﻖ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ" ،ﻓﺼﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻳّﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ).ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴّﺔ(
(٣ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ " ،ﺍﻟﺸّﻔﺎﺀ" ،ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻴّﺎﺕ ،ﻓﺼﻞ ﰲ ﲢﺼﻴﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ.
www.alkottob.com
(٤ﰲ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺟﻨﺴﺎ ،ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ "،ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ" ،ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻑ١٠٥٩ ،
ﺏ ،ﺳﻄﺮ ١٠٦٠ - ٢٥ﺃ.
m
(٥ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ " ،ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘّﻨﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ" ،ﺃﻭﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻴّﺎﺕ.
(٦ﰲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ،ﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ " ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ
ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ" .ﳎﻠﹼﺔ ﺭﺣﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ،٣٠ﻧﻮﻓﻤﱪ – ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ.٢٠٠٢ ،
o
(٧ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﺍﰊ ،ﻛﺘﺎﺏ " ﺍﳊﺮﻭﻑ" ،ﻣﺎﺩّﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ.
(٨ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱄ ﺍﳉﻮﻳﲏ "،ﺍﻟﺸّﺎﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ" ،ﺑﺎﺏ " ﺍﻟﺸّﻲﺀ ".
b.c
(٩ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺮ ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺯﻱ " ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻗﻴّﺔ " ،ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﺮّﺍﺯﻱ " ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﻊ " ،ﺳﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ
ﻼ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺪّﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺸّﲑﺍﺯﻱ " ﺍﻷﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ " ،ﺍﻟﻘﺪّﻳﺲ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘّﻔﺘﺎﺯﺍﱐ " ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ " ،ﺍﳌ ﹼ
ﺍﻹﻛﻮﻳﲏ " ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ " ،ﺩﻭﻧﺲ ﺳﻜﻮﺕ " ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ،"..ﺇﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳّﺮﻝ " ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ
ﻣﺴﺪّﺩﺓ ﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ " ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻨﻮّﺍﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺧﻠﻮ
o
ﻣﻦ ﻛ ﹼﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ .ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ " ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ "...
ott
(١٠ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ " ،ﺍﻟﻨّﺠﺎﺓ " ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻴّﺎﺕ ،ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ.
ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﺠﻤﻟﺎﻧﻴﺔ
www.fiseb.com
alk
w.
ww
www.alkottob.com
